Navigate:

10 years after Sept. 11, ‘business as usual’ on energy

'It didn’t take too long to get back to business as usual on energy policy,' said one economist. | AP Photos
Close

Around the same time, Sieminski was saying the attacks could become a “powerful” catalyst for efforts to reduce dependence on Mideast oil, including by increasing fuel-economy requirements and by drilling in ANWR and restricted portions of the Gulf of Mexico.

While some lawmakers were skeptical that drilling was the answer — Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said opening ANWR “would be breathtakingly ineffective and irrelevant,” for example — other people, including CEI’s Ebell, thought Congress was certain to allow oil production in the Alaskan preserve.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“I guess I am mildly surprised that the attacks of Sept. 11 did not spur action on some of those items,” Ebell said this month. “On the other hand, it’s hard to get things done. It’s much easier to stop things.”

Among other factors, Ebell blamed a “lackadaisical and incompetent” Bush administration, as well as a “feckless” Republican-led Congress, for failing to get ANWR legislation passed. He also noted that it wasn’t until 2008, amid record-high gasoline prices, that Bush finally lifted a presidential offshore-drilling moratorium that his father had imposed on much of the U.S. coastline.

For his part, Weiss, of the Center for American Progress, said he’s disappointed that Washington has taken so long to boost fuel-efficiency standards or get serious about renewable energy.

Congress had been working on comprehensive energy legislation before the attacks, but it took until 2005 to enact a wide-ranging energy law that gave incentives and loan guarantees to a cross-section of industries, from coal to nuclear power to renewables such as ethanol.

In 2007, Bush signed a second major energy law, which included the first boost in vehicle efficiency standards in decades along with the now-controversial phase-out of wasteful incandescent light bulbs. Obama has followed by further ratcheting up efficiency standards.

Still, by some measures, U.S. reliance on foreign oil is little different than it was a decade ago.

For example, imports accounted for 61.5 percent of U.S. petroleum products last year, according to the Energy Information Administration, compared with 60.4 percent in 2001. (A different measure, net imports, has declined significantly during that period — to 49.2 percent of the total from 55.5 percent — because of a sharp rise in exports of refined petroleum products.) Reliance on imports peaked in the middle part of the decade, before the recession.

Some on the Hill call it frustrating that not more has changed in the past 10 years. But tellingly, they don’t agree on what the U.S. should have done instead.

“We still haven't gotten it right on American energy security,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who, like many in the GOP, has criticized the Obama administration’s energy and environmental regulations as impediments to domestic production. “The president's energy policies continue to put a heavy wet blanket over our economy and our ability to get energy security."

Meanwhile, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said the government still needs to do more to promote solar and wind power, as well as natural gas. “I've said time and time again, sending nearly a trillion dollars abroad to countries that are despotic and wish us ill but happen to sit on huge reserves of oil because of our addiction to it is both a consequence to our economy and a consequence to our national security,” he said.

He saw a message in the lack of progress. “It says that obviously Big Oil in this country and the established energy interests have a huge say in the U.S. Congress,” Menendez said.

Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, said the main energy-related changes driven by Sept. 11 have come from an increasing awareness of the nation’s vulnerability to attacks on the electricity grid, and from the Defense Department’s efforts to increase its own energy efficiency. Eventually, he hopes, the Pentagon’s technology will work its way into the civilian sector, the way the Internet and global positioning satellites did — and that may finally bring the big changes the nation needs.

“As Churchill said, you can always rely on Americans to do the right thing,” Lovins said. “After they’ve done everything else.”

Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 6:59 p.m. on September 9, 2011.

Obama has failed America's economic recovery, we need a new president. Romney will reverse Obama's anti-energy policies and union law suits.

TeamPOLITICO: Sep. 10, 2011 - 7:00 AM EST

“As Churchill said, you can always rely on Americans to do the right thing,”

AMERICA IS AN ENERGY RICH NATION

9/12/2011, Monday, Romney will give a labor and energy speech highlighting: free enterprise, free choice and free speech at the South Carolina, North Charleston Boeing plant before heading to Tampa, Florida for the Tea Party Pesidential Debate.

If Obama and the Progressives were really 'Focused like a Laser' on Jobs, the oil fields in the Gulf would be open, and ANWAR would be getting ready for business.

Opening the Gulf alone would bring back 250,000 good paying jobs...Jobs we had before Obama and the Progressives took control and put people out of work.

If ANWAR was open and pumping, our reliance on foreign supply would be less, and the Price at the pump would be less also. Because having ANWAR open would increase the marginal supply, and Price is set at the margin.

We need to develop out Own supply of fuels and energy...Even Pres. Carter understood this. He is the one that set aside ANWAR for drilling to begin with.

There was an energy admin. in power on 9/11/01. All they saw in that day was opportunity, namely to invade Iraq for oil, something they'd wanted to do for at least a decade prior.

Had Al Gore been president, not only would there have been a much greater chance that plot would have been uncovered and thwarted, but the response would have been much, much different....and much, much better. I have no doubt about that at all.

“Worst Case Scenario Research” did not represent true consensus, it was a “license to exaggerate” and studying the effects of a crisis that hasn’t happened yet amounts to modern day Omen Worship; “The change is all around us…..” Climate blame was a w&t dream for, lab coat consultants, insurance corporations, pandering politicians, unconscionable news editors, lazy copy and paste so called journalists and in historical terms; “Liberalism's Iraq War” of climate WMD lies and fear mongering. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading stock markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of attempts at climate CONTROL. And since Obama never even mentioned the “crisis” in his February State of the Union Address, it’s fair to say that the new denier is anyone who still thinks we will all vote YES to taxing the air to make the weather colder. When we see the countless thousands of concerned consensus scientists marching in the streets and acting like this is really the “crisis” they say it is, only then will we not accuse them of legal exaggeration.

"We didn’t open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, for example, or launch an all-out effort to lessen reliance on foreign oil through conservation and alternative fuels."

There is no surprise here. There are no alternate fuels. Cars run or gas or made with materials for which petroleum is a component. ANWR hasn't been an option with the Repub in charge because of too many RINOs and certainly not with the DEMS in charge.

If this Administration didnt have a war on Businesses of all types not just Petroleum the whole world would be better off. We are supposed to be the worlds economic engine. But in his infinite wisdom Obama would rather play politics with and apoligise for our exceptionalism and redistribute our borrowed and/or printed wealth.

Energy is the only thing that will get us out of our dilemma but progressive libs wont let it happen. They have no concern for the financial aspects of what their agenda brings about, its their idealism that matters to them. The way they see it is just pass it and make it law and let Republicans figure out how to pay for it after the fact. The problem with that is while Republicans are scrambling to pay for all their entitlements and green agendas they are doubling down on the demagoguery of exactly how to pay for it.

In the mean time libs are off on to yet another liberal ( tangent ) favorite way to slowly kill us.

9/11 hasn't changed our energy policy...democrats have. Democrats have turned us into international beggars...akin to a hoarder that is sitting on tons of food and asking his neighbor for a handout!

We send nearly $800 billion overseas every year for oil...and we havve an estimated 150 years supply right under our own feet, and that doesn't include the trillions of cubic feet of NG or coal....but...we have to suffer democrats and the rest of the world doesn't, that's why we're becoming third world-like!

9-11 has very much changed the average American's desire for greater energy independence.

Lol.

No, it hasn't.

FYI, it's those icky libs buying hybrid cars for conservation. It's conservatives who believe they should be able to continue driving gas guzzlers AND scream about freedom and scream about terrorism AND screaming about how global warming is a fraud and how green energy is a sissy lib nonsense thing...not a lot of reality-based thinking over there.